Rybka 1.0 source code

[Rebel]

So then, explain why "0x7fffffff" is in the pre-Rybka's and Rybka 1 time control and not in Fruit ?

Proof he wrote his own time control perhaps ?

Contrary what Fadden states and Watkins put in his document ?

[bob]

So then, explain why "0x7fffffff" is in the pre-Rybka's and Rybka 1 time control and not in Fruit ?

Proof he wrote his own time control perhaps ?

Contrary what Fadden states and Watkins put in his document ?

Why is there an assignment that defines draw score at the top of Crafty's "iterate.c" procedure? Because I put it there. There is/was a reason. Doesn't mean a thing about whether the rest of the code was copied or not. Just means there is an extra statement.

Remember, he absolutely copied Crafty 19.x to make the pre-1.0 beta versions. Crafty has never been a UCI engine. So where did he get the UCI code? Did he write it, or copy from an earlier version of Fruit? Unknown. Not particularly important. You want to make or break a case on just one line of code here or there. We didn't depend on a single line of code anywhere to serve as evidence.

[michiguel]

nonsense...you ought to be ashamed.

You are missing a couple points.

1. Strelka is non-relevant to the discussion. It's a mixture of Fruit and Rybka 1. And I don't trust Osipov statements for one penny as he has his own agenda.

2. Rick Fadden - he missed things. He missed that Fruit's time control could not have been copied from Fruit, yet he claimed it. Wrong. Here:

http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm#C6

at the end of chapter 6.

You are forgetting I in meantime spend 7 months of my time in this issue and the longer I look the more I am convinced that Rybka 1 is way too original to be derived from anything.

So you have a new angle of defense. If he copies a block of code (with the 0.0 in it) you come up with two incredibly weak arguments that prove Fadden wrong:

(1) rather than really copying 0.0 from fruit. he MIGHT have somehow typed 0. or .0 by himself. No programmers use the numeric keypad, but he might have used a European version without numbers on the top row.

The explanation might be far fetched, but your arguments are not better. I told you that it could be

if (0.<=movetime)

where '.' and '<' are neighbor keys.

the fact is that 0.0 when the surrounding code is different does not mean much. You can have a lapsus thinking you were doing floats, a typo, who knows.

Miguel

Even though he was in the US when he was doing that effort, and even though photos of him on the net show him at a normal US qwerty keyboard. But in spite of all of that, it is possible that he typed 0. by accident, even though he really wanted to type 0) to end the if condition. For various reasons that do not stand up to even minimal scrutiny. Note that the explanation depends on odd circumstances that are very unlikely.

(2) If he copies a block of code, he is never going to add a statement in the middle of that? Once copied, it can't be changed at all, in your world? I've added such things to my code over the years, as I made changes. But he can't? Because a single added line shows that this block of code was not copied? Again, that is not even remotely plausible.

You try to invent completely implausible explanations, then claim that they are outright proof that nothing was copied. Hoping that some poor idiot will believe you. It isn't working.

A famous quote "He missed that Fruit's time control could not have been copied" followed by an "ironclad, irrefutable, and incontrovertible proof" of that Assuming one believes that pigs fly and everyone wins the lottery daily???

[Rebel]

So then, explain why "0x7fffffff" is in the pre-Rybka's and Rybka 1 time control and not in Fruit ?

Proof he wrote his own time control perhaps ?

Contrary what Fadden states and Watkins put in his document ?

Why is there an assignment that defines draw score at the top of Crafty's "iterate.c" procedure? Because I put it there. There is/was a reason. Doesn't mean a thing about whether the rest of the code was copied or not. Just means there is an extra statement.

Remember, he absolutely copied Crafty 19.x to make the pre-1.0 beta versions. Crafty has never been a UCI engine. So where did he get the UCI code? Did he write it, or copy from an earlier version of Fruit? Unknown. Not particularly important. You want to make or break a case on just one line of code here or there. We didn't depend on a single line of code anywhere to serve as evidence.

You do realize that's no answer to the question.

[bob]

nonsense...you ought to be ashamed.

You are missing a couple points.

1. Strelka is non-relevant to the discussion. It's a mixture of Fruit and Rybka 1. And I don't trust Osipov statements for one penny as he has his own agenda.

2. Rick Fadden - he missed things. He missed that Fruit's time control could not have been copied from Fruit, yet he claimed it. Wrong. Here:

http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm#C6

at the end of chapter 6.

You are forgetting I in meantime spend 7 months of my time in this issue and the longer I look the more I am convinced that Rybka 1 is way too original to be derived from anything.

So you have a new angle of defense. If he copies a block of code (with the 0.0 in it) you come up with two incredibly weak arguments that prove Fadden wrong:

(1) rather than really copying 0.0 from fruit. he MIGHT have somehow typed 0. or .0 by himself. No programmers use the numeric keypad, but he might have used a European version without numbers on the top row.

The explanation might be far fetched, but your arguments are not better. I told you that it could be

if (0.<=movetime)

where '.' and '<' are neighbor keys.

the fact is that 0.0 when the surrounding code is different does not mean much. You can have a lapsus thinking you were doing floats, a typo, who knows.

Miguel

1. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, types "if ( 0.0 < movetime) instead of "if (movetime >= 0.0) BTW, you have to invert the comparison if you invert the two things being compared. That blows this out of the water immediately, because you need that (> / .) key (both on same key) for this explanation to work, but we now need the < key instead, which doesn't work. And what about that "=" character? How did he get the > key, then the = key, and then go back to the > key to get the period by accident? None of this is the least bit plausible.

2. The obvious explanation is the simple one. The rest are highly improbable explanations that require all sorts of unlikely conditions to be true. Occam's razor...

[bob]

So then, explain why "0x7fffffff" is in the pre-Rybka's and Rybka 1 time control and not in Fruit ?

Proof he wrote his own time control perhaps ?

Contrary what Fadden states and Watkins put in his document ?

Why is there an assignment that defines draw score at the top of Crafty's "iterate.c" procedure? Because I put it there. There is/was a reason. Doesn't mean a thing about whether the rest of the code was copied or not. Just means there is an extra statement.

Remember, he absolutely copied Crafty 19.x to make the pre-1.0 beta versions. Crafty has never been a UCI engine. So where did he get the UCI code? Did he write it, or copy from an earlier version of Fruit? Unknown. Not particularly important. You want to make or break a case on just one line of code here or there. We didn't depend on a single line of code anywhere to serve as evidence.

You do realize that's no answer to the question.

It is also "no explanation" nor "an excuse". The most likely scenario is that the code was copied, then for some internal engine requirement, he has to add another variable that needs to be set to a really big value. Perhaps in Rybka, he normally terminates the search on an either/or condition, which means if time runs out, or specified search depth is finished. If all you want is a timed search, a big depth limit would make sense. In Crafty, I check the "search depth limit" and if non-zero use it in a test. Vas' code might actually be a bit simpler than mine, mine is what it is because it came from Cray Blitz.

[kranium]

Miguel A. Ballicora posted:
"The explanation might be far fetched, but your arguments are not better. I told you that it could be
if (0.<=movetime)
where '.' and '<' are neighbor keys.
the fact is that 0.0 when the surrounding code is different does not mean much.
You can have a lapsus thinking you were doing floats, a typo, who knows.
Miguel"

yes "who knows"!?
...lets speculate wildly:

ok, right, now i'm absolutely clear...thx!
apparently this is all a huge misunderstanding!

Vas didn't knowingly copy (or plagiarize) anything!
... he simply got confused and made a typo!

obviously simple human error:he had had too much to drink:
he was sleepless and distraught from losing his source code,
and had to sit up all night re-typing it!


you expect us to buy this nonsense?

[michiguel]

nonsense...you ought to be ashamed.

You are missing a couple points.

1. Strelka is non-relevant to the discussion. It's a mixture of Fruit and Rybka 1. And I don't trust Osipov statements for one penny as he has his own agenda.

2. Rick Fadden - he missed things. He missed that Fruit's time control could not have been copied from Fruit, yet he claimed it. Wrong. Here:

http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm#C6

at the end of chapter 6.

You are forgetting I in meantime spend 7 months of my time in this issue and the longer I look the more I am convinced that Rybka 1 is way too original to be derived from anything.

So you have a new angle of defense. If he copies a block of code (with the 0.0 in it) you come up with two incredibly weak arguments that prove Fadden wrong:

(1) rather than really copying 0.0 from fruit. he MIGHT have somehow typed 0. or .0 by himself. No programmers use the numeric keypad, but he might have used a European version without numbers on the top row.

The explanation might be far fetched, but your arguments are not better. I told you that it could be

if (0.<=movetime)

where '.' and '<' are neighbor keys.

the fact is that 0.0 when the surrounding code is different does not mean much. You can have a lapsus thinking you were doing floats, a typo, who knows.

Miguel

1. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, types "if ( 0.0 < movetime) instead of "if (movetime >= 0.0)

Not true!

First of all, ( 0.0 <= movetime) if equivalent of (movetime >= 0.0)

Second, some people, including myself, write many times I place the constant on the left and there are very good reasons to do that. In fact, many recommend it!

For instance, when you want to type
if (x == 0) and you made a mistake and type (x = 0), that is valid but unwanted code. But if you type (0 == x) you cannot make the mistake w/o the compiler screaming. So, you get accustomed to do it. Now I do it both ways.

The problem is you think that everybody does things the way you do.

BTW, you have to invert the comparison if you invert the two things being compared. That blows this out of the water immediately, because you need that (> / .) key (both on same key) for this explanation to work, but we now need the < key instead, which doesn't work. And what about that "=" character? How did he get the > key, then the = key, and then go back to the > key to get the period by accident? None of this is the least bit plausible.

2. The obvious explanation is the simple one. The rest are highly improbable explanations that require all sorts of unlikely conditions to be true. Occam's razor...

The obvious explanation is that it was a mistake thinking float when it was integer. Assuming that VR copy the whole code, modified it and left 0.0 is more complicated and required less parsimony. Still, I do not want to claim Occam Razor because it has nothing to do with this and it cannot be used to prove anything.

Miguel

[kranium]

The explanation might be far fetched, but your arguments are not better. I told you that it could be
if (0.<=movetime)
where '.' and '<' are neighbor keys.
the fact is that 0.0 when the surrounding code is different does not mean much. You can have a lapsus thinking you were doing floats, a typo, who knows.
Miguel

I have it from reliable sources that around the time of Rybka 1.0 beta, he was abducted by aliens and abused with probes,
but it's too traumatic for him to talk about...
this might very well explain his confusion, and all the absurd explanations, hypnotized fanboys, etc.

[JuLieN]

The explanation might be far fetched, but your arguments are not better. I told you that it could be
if (0.<=movetime)
where '.' and '<' are neighbor keys.
the fact is that 0.0 when the surrounding code is different does not mean much. You can have a lapsus thinking you were doing floats, a typo, who knows.
Miguel

I have it from reliable sources that around the time of Rybka 1.0 beta, he was abducted by aliens and abused with probes,
but it's too traumatic for him to talk about...
this might very well explain his confusion, and all the absurd explanations, hypnotized fanboys, etc.

Poor Vas!

(Joke aside, how would you moderate Norman's a bit offensive but very funny post?)